Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BENCH:
Assessee, Shri V.Prabhudoss against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry, in /CIT(A)-PDY/2016-17 dated 05.01.2018 for assessment year 2010-11 and in ITA No.102/CIT(A)-PDY/2015-16 dated 05.01.2018 for assessment years 2012-13 and ITA Nos.803 to 804/CHNY/2018 are the appeals filed by the Assessee, Shri B.Dayalrajan against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry, in ITA Nos.29 & 30 /CIT(A)- PDY/2016-17 dated 04.01.2018 for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13. As the issues raised in the above appeals are inter- connected, all appeals filed by two different assessees are disposed off by this common order.
Shri S.Sridhar represented on behalf of the Assessee and Shri B.Sagadevan represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by ld.A.R that the appeal has been disposed of by the ld.CIT(A) ex parte on the ground that the assessee had not represented before the Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that the to 805/Chny/18 :- 3 -:
Authorised Representative of assessee, a Chartered Accountant was seriously ill and he was forced to take bed rest for a considerable period of time due to amputation of his toes. Consequently, he has not represented during the said period. It was a further submission that as the same Chartered Accountant was authorised in another case of assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) stating the same reason before this Tribunal, the said reason was found to be reasonable by the Tribunal in the case of Smt.P.Preetha in to 984/Chny/2018 dated 19.09.2018.It was a submission that the assessee may be granted an another opportunity to represent his appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). In reply, ld.D.R vehemently supported the order of the CIT(Appeals).
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that assessee’s Auditor was under treatment and he had physical ailments which led to the amputation of his toes, his non-appearance before the Ld.CIT(A) is found to be on good and sufficient reasons.
Considering the submissions of ld.A.R and in the interest of natural justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. to 805/Chny/18 :- 4 -:
In the result, all the four appeal of the assessees in the case of Shri B.Dayalrajan and Shri V.V.Prabhudoss for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 18th December, 2018, at Chennai.